Adding Universal Laws to the Bill

If we set aside metaphysics, magic and mysticism, then what does it mean for something to be “universal”… for a scientific theory to be universaly true?

setting aside all the bizzare thoughts in our heads and looking at what we are ACTUALY DOING when we know something to be universal, holding the activities at arms legnth… well there is little there to be said except that we are using certain tools and that they are behaving in certain ways and such.

and when we reproduce those tools somewhere else somewhen else then they also behave the same way. Is this what it means then to be universal? to have a local and contingent situation reproduced somewhere and somewhen else? if so what is so special about that fairly mundane activity that means that we then praise it as demonstrating something to be “universaly true” rather than merely saying that it is an occasion, among many, where we reconstruct an activity somehwere and somewhen… that we create a new spring and a new weight and draw once again on thousands of texts and ideas and words and activities and objects, and preform the same routine procedure again.

just as, in the examples bellow, we once again create a cheese, drawing on networks of agriculture and horticulture and transport and economics and then package and transport and such this cheese over huge distance and time to have it appear “as if by magic” somehwere far away in another time.

isnt that the same process, metaphysics and talk of magic aside, as when we domnstrate the universality of a protein interaction or an animal behaviour or a function of velocity?

isnt the universality of a scientific fact merely the costly and time consuming process of universaling the SAME local tools and conditions… a lbaroratory, a body of texts and ideas, a ensemble of tools and measuring devices and such, a set of enviromental conditions, temperatures, humidities, habitats etc?

is that the process which so impresses or infuriates epistemologists? the same process which allows us to use a credit card in many different restuarants? the same process which allows us to shave in many different hotels?

held at arms legnth is nature simply the outcome of a complicated enrolling of a massive army of objects in a certain manner. the near-perfect reproduction of a local contingency anywhere we desire… is that what it means for something to then be universal? a mere tautology and an expensive one to boot?

Following from Latour’s “Irreducibility of the Sciences”

4.4.4

“Universality” is as local as the rest. Universality only exists “in potentia”. In other words it does not exist unless we are prepared to pay the high price of building and maintaining costly and dangerous liaisons.

…Do not accuse me of nominalism. All the parts of an army MAY be linked to a headquarters. The officers of the Strategic Command MAY work on a map of the world that measures three meters by four. All the clocks in the world MAY be syncronized if a universal time is built. I simply want the cost of creating these universals and the narrow circuits along which they run to be added to the bill.

4.5.7.1

Nothing escapes from a network, least of all know-how, but who doubts that a network which pays the price can extend itself?
“Prove to me that this substance which works so well in Paris is equally good in the suburbs of Timbuktu.”
“But what on earth for? There is a universal law.”
“I don’t want to BELIEVE in it. I want to SEE it.”
“Just wait until I have built a laboratory, and I’ll prove it to you…”
A few years and a few million dollars later in the brand laboratory I see the proof with my own eyes. I step away. I travel a few miles, and pose the question again:
“Prove to me that…”

When people say that knowledge is “universally true” we must understand that it is like railroads, which are found everywhere in the world but only to a limited extent. To shift to claiming that locomotives can travel beyond their narrow and expensive rails is another matter. Yet magicians try to dazzle us with “universal law” which they claim to be valid in the gaps between their networks!

4.5.7.2

How can knowledge be extended? Like radios that are made in Hong Kong, or multiplication tables! There must be buyers and sellers, teachers and commercial circuits, representatives and books that are held to be authorative.

We say that the laws of Newton can be found in Gabon and that this is quite remarkable since that is a long way from England. But I have seen Lepetit cememberts in the supermarkets of California. This is also quite remarkable, since Lisieux is a long way from Los Angeles. Either there are two miracles that have to be admired together in the same way, or there are none.

First, I like what you wrote–nice essay. Second, I’m not sure if I understand fully what you intend to say. But bear with me :

Universality is a human-construct that really, or at best, is not what naturally occurs, or not a given, but is created, perhaps, inadvertently. That universality is a sham. This oh-so-wonderful thing we cling to for comfort? That there is no such thing as universal, only replication of activities.

yeah pretty much. Especially " That there is no such thing as universal, only replication of activities." I wouldnt personaly go so far as to dissmiss it as a sham, because regardless of how it occurs it often works and is quite a successful way for SCIENTISTS to speak about their laws…

so yeah, they’re just as “real” as anything else, but what is often missed is how they are an expensive and complicated excerisise in various practical matters… building things, buying things, translating informaiton… blah blah you obviously understand all of that so why am i repeating it lol…

yeah, I guess I’m cautious of getting into the “ha ha feeble scientist, I henceforth falsify all of your pretensions!!!” mode of talking… because if anything this sociological stance is equally as tenuous as those of a sicentific…

they’re both constantly negotiated outcomes of a test of stregnth between hordes of allied elements… words, objects, books, people etc… it is constantly pointed out here by various “Philosophers” that to say that truth’s arn’t in fact truths is a self-contradictory position… of course it only is one if you think that true and flase mean something other than merely denoting a temporary dividing point between forces and gradients of resitance etc between networks… and accept that even that description is a similar test of stregnth…

there’s a thread in the main philosophy bit where I’ve posted some stuff by Latour, who is where all this jargon and such is emenating from… him and a few others… but there might be stuff in that thread which may interest you if you found the above interesting…

here is some crap from another thread, probably will be repeating stuff but oh well:

so that way out is to say that true and flase don’t mean anything, they are labels applied by victors and loosers in battles of association, and which label you apply to what is simply a matter of where and, perhaps more crucialy, WHEN you are standing in relaiton to whatever it is you are looking at, including your own statements.

truth is sometimes an outcome, a product, an effect. and latter it may be seen as a cause, a force, a producer.

simply depends on when you start making your own statements in relation to the statements you are evaluating… and so your own statements are equally dependent on their position in that order of networks and the associations they draw on… the actors they enrol to seperate out hybrids of truth and falsity, nature and society, products and producers, contructions and discoveries… all the dichotomoies of knowledge…

if something appears to be true or false, it is simply a case of examining the associations, the costly liasons of objects and people and texts and such which make it either one or the other… and being well aware that they are allways subject to change and that the same applies equally to your own text wich is a reflexive recursive element in that very same network of associations.

interesting shit but kind of hard to get ones head around.

so yeah, to be either an absolutist or a relativist is to act as if controversies are settled in some sense, that true and flase and absolute and relative and such actualy MEAN something outside and above what you are doing at the time… that your own statements somewhow stand outside of the relations of assoctiation which you are seeking to dicuss… when in fact they are simply the temporary outcomes of various costly trials of stregnth, battles between networks of actors…

An interesting kind of shit, no less.

Yeah, it seems the absolutist and the relativist have more similarities than differences. For one thing, if truth ( and falsity) are really what you describe them to be, then the bottom line is that truths are contingent on time and place, and claims by either side becomes this temporary explanation about things and their nature. Yet, some philosophers claim that if it is going to be the truth, then it must not have an expiration date. Then what kind of truths are we talking about?

Anyway, now you’ve made me want to read Latour. But I’ve got other books to finish, so he would have to wait.

if you want to try some latour some time, well the “Pastuerization of France” and “Science and Action” are both good places to start.

however, I found that to get your head around the technicalities it helps to read his shorter articles, for which you will need a decent library…

the sociological review monographs “A sociology of monsters” and “Power action and belief” both have very interesting articles… esp. the monsters one… that’s a pretty key essay… “technology is society made durable”…

good luck…